Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	divine_a	figure_n	great_a	115	3	2.0855	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56393	Reasons for abrogating the test imposed upon all members of Parliament, anno 1678, Octob. 30 in these words, I A.B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testifie, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at, or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever, and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous : first written for the author's own satisfaction, and now published for the benefit of all others whom it may concern.	Parker, Samuel, 1640-1688.	1688 (1688)	Wing P467; ESTC R5001	62,716	138

enough in the Cause by making a Noise upon these Two loud Engines they could at pleasure drown the Dispute Now ever since this Alteration of the State of the War between the Two Churches we hear little or nothing at all of the real Presence in the Cause but it is become as great a Stranger to the i.e. their Church of England as Transubstantiation it self but the whole matter is resolved into a meer Sacramental Figure and Representation and a Participation only of the Benefits of the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith. I know not any one Writer of that Party of Men that hath ever own'd any higher Mystery but on the contrary they state all the Disputes about the Eucharist upon Sacramentarian Principles and with them to assert the true reality of the Presence of our Saviour's Body and Blood in the Sacrament as naturally resolves it self into Transubstantiation as that does into Idolatry And the main Argument insisted upon by them is the natural Impossibility of the thing it self to the Divine Omnipotence which beside the prophane Boldness of prescribing Measures to God's Attributes in a Mystery that they do not comprehend 't is as appears by the Premises a Defiance to the Practice of all Churches who have ever acknowledged an incomprehensible Mystery not subject to the Examination of Humane Reason but to be imbraced purely upon the Authority of a Divine Revelation And therefore that ought to be the only matter of Dispute For if it be a Divine Revelation as all Christendom hath hitherto believed that determines the Case without any further Enquiry and if any Man will not be satisfied with that Authority he makes very Bold with his Maker And Men of those Principles would no doubt make admirable Work with the Definitions of Articles of Faith by the Four first general Councils But to let their new way of Arguing pass it is these Men that first set up Sacramentarian Principles in this Church and then blew them into the Parliament House raising there every Session continual Tumults about Religion and it is to their Caballing with the Members that we owe these new and unpresidented TESTS Perhaps to have their own Decrees and Writings established by Law and imposed upon the whole Nation as Gospel In short if they own a real Presence we see from the Premises how little the Controversie is between that and Transubstantiation as it is truly and ingeniously understood by all reformed Churches If they do not they disown the Doctrine both of the Church of England and the Church Catholick and then if they own only a figurative Presence and it is plain they own no other they stand condemned of Heresie by almost all Churches in the Christian World and if this be the thing intended to be set up as it certainly is by the Authors and Contrivers of it by renouncing Transubstantiation then the Result and Bottom of the Law is under this Pretence to bring a new Heresy by Law into the Church of England And yet upon this Foot I find the Controversie stands at this present Day between the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Condom on one part and little Iulian in the Back-shop with his Dragoons on the other part The Bishop establishes the Real Presence in Opposition to the Figurative His Answerer turns the whole Mystery into meer Type and Figure by seting up a figurative Interpretation of the Words of Institution and yet confesses it at the same time to be somewhat more than a Figure To this it is reply'd I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Figure of it To this it is answered That the Presence is Spiritual but yet Real but how a Corporeal Substance should have a real Spiritual Presence is a thing that requires more Philosophy to clear it up than Transubstantiation or in the Words of the Author himself We suppose it to be a plain Contradiction that Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body that is Corporeal This is their last Resolution of this Controversie that a true real Presence is a Contradiction and so I think is a real spiritual Presence of a bodily Substance This Scent the whole Chace follows and unanimously agree in this Cry That there is no Presence but either meerly Figurative and that shuts out all Reality and is universally condemned by all the Reformation or meerly Spiritual i.e. the present Effects and Benefits of the absent Body and Blood of Christ which hath been all along equally cashiered by all other Reformed Churches as the other grand Scandal of Zuinglianism Thus the London Answerer to the Oxford Discourses There can be no real Presence but either Figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive them So Dr. St. All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a real Presence of Christ's invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey real and spiritual Effects to the Souls of Men. The Oxford Answerer to the Oxford Discourses allows no other real Presence but the virtual Presence that is the meer Effect So the popular Author of the Discourse against Transubstantiation makes no Medium between the meer figurative Presence and Transubstantiation so that all other Presence that is not meerly Figurative comes under the Notion of Transubstantiation Now the gentlest Character he is pleased to give of this Monsieur is this That the Business of Transubstantiation is not a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of the Scripture and all the Sence and Reason of all Mankind But besides the intolerable Rudeness of the Charge against all the Learned Men of the Church of Rome as the worst of Sots and Ideots if there be no middle real Presence between Transubstantiation and the Figure he hath cast all the Protestant Churches into the same Condemnation of Sots and Fools But howsoever rash and preposterous it may be for Presons that believe the real Presence to abjure the Word Transubstantiation ye to determine any part of Divine Worship in the Christian Church to be in its own Nature Idolatry is inhumane and barbarous IDOLATRY is a Stabbing and Cut-throat Word its least Punishment is the greatest that can be both Death and Damnation and good Reason too when the Crime is no less than renouncing the true God that made Heaven and Earth Thus Exod. 22. 20. He that sacrificeth unto any God save unto the Lord or Iehovah only he shall be utterly destroyed Deut. 13. 6. If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother or thy Son or thy Daughter or the Wife of thy Bosom or thy Friend which is as thine own Soul entice thee secretly saying Let us go and serve other Gods which thou hast not known thou nor thy Fathers namely

principal Authors may be seen in the late Bishop of Durham's Historia Transubstantiationis Iohn Poinet Bishop of Winchester who wrote a very learned Book upon the Argument entituled Diallacticon to explain the Sence of the Church of England about it Iohn Iewel Bishop of Salisbury the learned Bishops Andrews and Bilson Isaac Casaubon in the Name and by the Command of King Iames the First in his Answer to Cardinal Perron Mr. Hooker Iohn Bishop of Rochester Montague Bishop of Norwich Iames Primate of Armagh Francis Bishop of Ely Archbishop Laud Bishop Overal and the Archbishop of Spalato To this Catalogue variety of other Writers might be added but either here are Witnesses enough or there never can be Neither need I produce their Testimonies when they are so vugarly known and have been so frequently recited I shall content my self with the Two principal the most learned and reverend Prelates Poinet and Andrews The First wrote his Diallacticon concerning the Truth Nature and Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist A Book much approved and often commended by Grotius tho he knew not the Author as the best Discourse upon the Argument and the most proper Method to restore the Peace of the Christian Church in that Point which he further says was for that purpose translated into French by a reformed Divine by the Advice of his Brethren I have not the Book by me but the Design and fundamental Assertion is to prove as Dr. Cosins recites it that the Eucharist is not only a Figure of the Body of our Lord but contains in it the Verity Nature and Substance and therefore that these Terms ought not to be exploded because the Ancients generally used them in their Discourses upon this Argument But Bishop Andrews his Passage though grown Vulgar and Thread-bare by being so continually quoted best deserves our Observation because by that means it is made not only a Declaration of his own Sence but of all that followed him in it and that is of almost all the learned Men of the Church of England that have succeeded from that time The Passage is in his Answer to Bellarmine in these Words The Cardinal is not ignorant except wilfully that Christ hath said This is my Body Now about the Object we are both agreed all the Controversy is about the Modus We firmly believe that it is the Body of Christ but after what manner it is made to be so there is not a Word extant in the Gospel and therefore we reject it from being a Matter of Faith. We will if you please place it among the Decrees of the Schools but by no means among the Articles of Religion What Durandus said of old we approve of We hear the Word feel the Effect know not the Manner believe the Presence And so we believe the Presence too and that real no less than your selves Only we define nothing rashly of its Modus neither do we curiously inquire into it no more than how the Blood of Christ cleanseth us in our Baptism no more than how in the Incarnation of Christ the Humane Nature is united to the Divine We rank it in the Order of Mysteries and indeed the whole Eucharist it self is nothing but Mystery what remains beside ought to be consumed by Fire that is as the Fathers elegantly express it to be ador'd by Faith not examined by Reason This was his State of the Controversie that was then perus'd and approv'd of by King Iames and ever after retained by the Divines of the Church of England down to the Rebellion and Subversion of Church and State and then it was carried into Banishment with its Confessors For whilst his late Majesty resided at Cologn it was there commonly objected in his own Presence by the Roman Divines against the Church of England That all its Members were meer Zuinglians and Sacramentarians that believed only an imaginary Presence Upon this Dr. Cosins who was then Dean of the Chapel Royal by his Majesties Command writes a Discourse to vindicate the Church of England from that Calumny and to give an Account of its Sence concerning the true and real Presence in which he declares himself to the same purpose with all the forementioned Authors all along vehemently asserting the true reality of the Presence and still declaring the Modus to be ineffable unsearchable above our Senses and above our Reason So that still all Parties are agreed in the thing it self were it not for that one mistaken Supposition That the Church of Rome hath not only defin'd the Matter but the Manner which she is so far from pretending to attempt that before she proceeded to decree any thing about it she declar'd that it was so incomprehensible that it was not capable of being defin'd as we see all Christendom hath done beside Now after all this I leave it to the common Sence and Ingenuity of Mankind whether any thing can be more barbarous and profane than to make the renouncing of a Mystery so unanimously receiv'd a State TEST And that is my present Concernment about it not as a Point of Divinity but as turned into a Point of State. Thus far proceeded the Old Church of England which as it was banished so it was restored with the Crown But by reason of the long Interval of Twenty Years between the Rebellion and Restitution there arose a new Generation of Divines that knew not Joseph These Men underhand deserted and undermined the Old Church as it stood upon Divine Right and Catholick Principles and instead of it crected a New Church of their own Contrivance consisting partly of Independency partly of Erastianism with the Independent leaving no standing Authority in the Christian Church over private Christians but leaving every Man to the arbitrary Choice of his own Communion with Erastus allowing no Jurisdiction to the Christian Church but what is derived from the Civil Magistrate These Principles being Pleasing to the Wantonness of the People these Men soon grew popular and soon had the Confidence to call themselves the Church of England But the principal Object of their Zeal was the Destruction of Popery and the only Measure of Truth with them was Opposition to the Church of Rome And therefore they assum'd to themselves the Management of that great and glorious War. And as they managed it upon new Principles or indeed none at all never writing for our Church but only against that Church so they advanced new Arguments to represent the Church of Rome as Odious as possible to the People Among these the Two most frightful Topicks were Transubstantiation and Idolatry One was a very hard Word and the other a very ugly one These Two Words they made the Two great Kettle-drums to the Protestant Guards They were continually beating upon them with all their Force and whenever they found themselves at any Disadvantage with an Enemy as they often were by pressing too far for they never thought they did

the Father of Abraham and the Father of Nachor and they serv'd strange Gods. But when Abraham came into Canaan I find no Records that the Customs of his Country had pass'd the River but on the contrary evident Instances of their Knowledge of the true God as Creator of Heaven and Earth What can be more plain than the Story of Melchisedeck Priest of the most High God a Term appropriate in Scripture to the Supreme Deity in his blessing Abraham Blessed be Abraham of the most High God Creator of Heaven and Earth And when God consumed Sodom and Gomorrah with Fire from Heaven Idolatry is no where reckoned among the Causes and Provocations of that severe and unusual Judgment and had it been one of their crying Sins it would have been the loudest and so never have been omitted by the Sacred Historian And when Isaac was forced by Famine into the Country of the Philistines Abimelech their King entred into a Solemn and Religious Covenant with him of mutual Defence and Offence upon this Inducement that he was the Blessed of the Lord or the peculiar Favourite of Iehovah so that as long as himself and Isaac were of a side the Supreme Gods immediate mediate Providence would be engaged in his Protection The first plain Intimation we find of it in Palestine is in the History of Iacob after his Conversation with the Shechemites where upon his departure from that City by God's especial Command he builds an Altar at Bethel to God and commands his Family to put away their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Strange Gods. And from this time we read of nothing of this Nature till the Deliverance of the Children of Israel out of Egypt after they had been deteined there Four Hundred and Thirty Years according to the Hebrew or Two Hundred and Fifteen according to the Seventy the greatest part of which time was spent in Slavery and Bondage But at and after their Deliverance we hear of nothing else but Cautions against Idolatry or Worship of Strange Gods as if in that long Tract of Time and Misery they had lost the Tradition of the God of their Ancestors and by long conversation with the Egyptians had taken up their Masters Religion together with their Burdens and it was scarce possible to be otherwise for men in their poor condition after so long a Tract of Time than to take up the Religion in publick Practice Long custom and conversation naturally inures Men to the Manners of the Country but Slavery breaks Men to them And what could be expected from miserable People who spent all their days in carrying of Clay gathering Straw making Bricks and all Offices of Servility than that they should serve their Masters Gods as well as their Masters themselves And that this was their case is evident from the whole Series of the Story The first Discovery that the Almighty made of himself was to Moses in the Burning Bush where he tells us I am the God of thy Fathers the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob But this seems to be a New Language to Moses For he replys When I come unto the Children of Israel and shall say unto them the God of your Fathers hath sent me unto you and they shall say to me what is his Name or what God is he what shall I say unto them To this he is commanded to answer I am that I am hath sent you that is the only self existent Being that is the only Supreme Deity and God of your Fathers And for the truth and demonstration of this he refers both him and them to the following Miracles And when Moses was discouraged by the complaints of the People because of their severe Usage the Almighty gives him encouragement upon this powerful Motive I am Jehovah or I am the Lord who will deliver you with a strong Hand or stretched out Arm i.e. I am that Omnipotent self-existent Being and that shall be the proof of it the great Miracles that I will work for your Delivery And at the time of their Deliveranee he immediately institutes the Passover not only as a Memorial of the Thing but as I shall prove afterwards the strongest Bar against Idolatry But as soon as they sat down at the Foot of Mount Sinah which was their first place of Rest God's first Care was to make further provision against Idolatry where after a fearful and glorious Representation of his Presence he gives the Ten Commandments whereof the Four First are directly levell'd against Idolatry First He enjoyns the worship of Himself who by his Almighty Power had delivered them from their Egyptian Bondage In the next place He forbids them the Worship of all Idols i. e. as himself describes them The likeness or similitude of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth A plain and indeed logical Definition this that Idolatry is giving the Worship of the Supreme God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing that can be represented by an Image which nothing but coporeal Beings can and to suppose such a Being the Supreme Deity is the only true and proper Idolatry And tho there may seem to be two sorts of it First either to Worship a material and created Being as the Supreme Deity Or Secondly to ascribe any corporeal Form or Shape to the Divine Nature yet in the Result both are but one for to ascribe unto the Supreme God any corporeal Form is the same thing as to Worship a created Being for so is every corporeal Substance This is I say the true and only Notion of Idolatry And all the Strange Gods mentioned in the Scripture are only some most glorious Pieces of the visible Creation as I shall prove at large from undeniable Testimonies And for this reason it was that the very Angels by whom this Affair was immediately transacted never made any appearance in any visible Shape but only in a Cloud or in a Glory to prevent the very Peril of Idolatry and therefore Moses in his dying and farewel Speech reminds them over and over that at Horeb they heard the Voice of God but saw no Similitude with this Application to them lest you corrupt your selves i. e. by believing that there can be any Similitude of the Supreme Godhead And as this is the literal and plain Sense of the two first Commandments so it seems to be the only Design of the Third and Fourth For the English of the Third if it were rightly translated runs thus Thou shalt not give the Name of the Lord thy God to a Vanity or Idol and so the Septuagint render it For the Word Vanity and Idol are Synonomous in Scripture because an Idol is a vain and empty Thing that represents nothing for when it is set up as the Symbol and Image of a Deity that is no Deity it is the Image of nothing as St. Paul

Notion singular to himself from all the other Philosophers of Greece viz. That every substance was compounded of matter and form and that these two were really distinct from one another and then that the quantity of every Body was really distinct from the substance of it and so distinct as to be separable from it And lastly That all other Qualities Accidents and Predicaments were founded not in the Substance but in the Quantity and therefore in all change of Affairs ever fol'owed its Fortunes Now the Catholick Church having in all Ages asserted the real and substantial Presence Oh say they to shew their deep new Learning That is to be understood in the Aristotelian way by separating the Form of the Bread from the Matter but chiefly by separating the inward Substance of Bread from its outward Quantity and its retinue of Qualities This was the Rise of Philosophick or Scholastick Transubstantiation that the Quantity and Accidents of the Bread are pared off from all the Substance and shaped and moulded a-new so as to cover an humane Body And after this they run into an infinite Variety of Disputes and Hypotheses among themselves so that till the Last Age it hath been the chief entertainment of all pretenders to Philosophy in Christendom Rupertus Abbot of Dentsch a Village upon the Rhine lying on the other side of the River against the City of Cologne a Man of great reputation for Learning in that Age makes out the Philosophy of the Thing by the Vnion of the Word or Divine Nature that is Omnipresent with the Bread and Wine and it is that Vnity he says that makes it one Body with that in Heaven And withal that it is as easie for our Saviour to assume or unite himself to one as the other and when that is done they are both one body because they are both his Body This was fine and curious but not Aristotelian enough for that Age in which that Philosophy was set up as the Standard of humane Wisdom by the Beaux Esprits Among these Petrus Abelardus gain'd a mighty Name and Reputation for his skill in these new found Philosophick Curiosities tho' otherwise a Man versed much beyond the Genius of that Age in Polite Learning but being of a proud and assuming Nature he soon drew upon himself the Envy of the less Learned Monks which cost him a long scene of Troubles as he hath elegantly described them in his Book of his own Persecutions But among many other singularities to maintain the separation of the matter from the form and the substance from the accidents in the Sacrament of the Altar he is forced to make use of this shift That upon the Separation of the Substance the Accidents that cannot subsist of themselves are supported by the Air. But then comes Peter Lombard Anno 1140. Grand Master of the Sentences and Father of the next race of School-men who indeed proves the real and substantial Presence out of the Ancients particularly St. Austin and St. Ambrose but when he comes to explain the manner of it whether it be a formal or material change whether the substance of the Bread and Wine be reduced into its first matter or into nothing and the like his conclusion is definire non sufficio I presume not to determine and therefore quitting these uncertain things this I certainly know from Authorities viz. That the substance of the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ but as for the manner of the Conversion we are not ashamed to confess our Ignorance But if you inquire in what subject the Accidents subsist he answers problematically mihi videtur that they subsist without any subject at all But it was agreed in all Schools That whatever became of the Substance the Accidents remained And that all outward Operations terminated there and that only they were broken and eaten But as for the substance of the Bread and Wine some were for its permanency with the Substance of the Body and Blood some for its Annihilation some for physical Conversion But then these Curiosites were kept in the Schools where witty Men for want of more useful Imployment entertained and amused themselves with these fine subtleties of thought But then they were confined within the Schools and never admitted so much as to ask the Authority of the Church In the next Age comes that young and active Pope Innocent the Third who succeeded to the See Anno 1198. in the Thirty seventh Year of of his Age having been made Cardinal in the Twenty ninth In the Eighteenth Year of his Reign he summoned the famous Fourth or great Council of Lateran at which were present above 400 Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs besides Embassadors from all Princes in Christendom for recovery of the Holy Land Extirpation of Heresies and for Reformation of the Church In this Council the Word Transubstantiate is first used in a Decree of the Church to express the real or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament under the species of Bread and Wine Where in the Decree against the heresie of the Albigenses who denied the Real Presence it is Enacted That the Body and Blood of Christ are really contained under the species of Bread and Wine The Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood by the Power of God. But though the Council used the word to Express the Mystery they did not so much as define its signification much less the nature of the thing It was a word that at that time it seems was in fashion having been made use of by some of the more Polite Writers of the Age. Some give the honour of the Invention to Paschasius Radbertus some to Petrus Blesensis and some to others but being a word in Vogue among learned Men the Council made use of it as a Term of Art instead of the old word Transelementation that had hitherto kept its possession among both Greeks and Latins It is pity the Greek Copy of this Canon is lost whereas all the rest are preserved For if we had the Greek word that answered to the Latin it might have given us some more light into the thing However this was all that was defined by Innocent the Third or by the Council of Lateran for it is much disputed by learned Men who was the Author of those Canons many contending that they were drawn up after the Council because they often quote and appeal to its Decrees This is the chief Argument of the Learned and the Loyal William Barclay and others against them But if these learned Men had considered a little further and looked back to the Third Council of Lateran they would have found all the Canons cited in this extant in that So that only some Canons of the Third Council are revived and ratified in this Fourth And after the clearing of this Objection I can see no other material

Exception against them But to proceed this word having gain'd the Authority of so great a Council and being put into the Decretals of the Church by Gregory the Ninth in honor of his Uncle Innocent the Third it soon gained universal usage among the Latins and was adopted into the Catalogue of School Terms and was there hammer'd into a Thousand shapes and forms by those Masters of Subtlety And upon it St. Thomas of Aquin erects a new Kingdom of his own against the old Lombardian Empire but long he had not Reigned when Scotus our subtle Country-man set up against him And whatever St. Thomas of Aquin asserted for that reason only he contradicted him so that they two became the very Caesar and Pompey of the Schools almost all the great Masters of Disputation from that time fighting under one of their commands and what intelligible Philosophy both parties vented about the Substantial o● Transubstantial Presence upon supposition of the real difference between Matter and Form Substance and Accidents would be both too nice and too tedious to recite only in general the Thomists maintain the Transmutation of the Elements the Scotists the Annihilation and they proceed to abstract so long till they could not only separate the Matter and Form and Accidents of the Bread from one another but the Paneity or Breadishness it self from them all and founded a new Vtopian World of Metaphysick and Specifick Entities and Abstracts Thus far I have as briefly as I can represented the Scholastick History of this Argument in which the Authority of the Church is not at all concerned having gone no farther than to assign or appropriate a Word to signifie such a thing but all along declaring the Thing it self to be beyond the compass of a Definition I know 't is commonly said that the Council of Trent hath presumed to define the Modus and learned Men I know not by what fatal over-sight take it up on trust one from another and the Definition is generally given in these Terms That Transubstantiation is wrought by the Annihilation of the substance of the Bread and Wine the Accidents remaining To the which Annihilation succeeds the Body and Blood of Christ under the Accidents of Bread and Wine So the Bishops of Durham and Winchester represent it so Mr. Alix and the Writers of his Church and not only so but contrary to the sence of all other Churches they confound the Real Presence with Transubstantiation as this learned Man hath done through his whole Disputation upon it using the very words promiscuously as indeed all the modern Followers of Calvin do and charging the same absurdities upon both and imputing the first Invention of the Real Presence to Nicolas the Second and Gregory the Seventh in their Decrees against Berengarius But I cannot but wonder how so many learned Men should with so much assurance fansie to themselves such a Definition in the Trent Council of the Modus of Transubstantiation by the Annihilation of the Substance and the Permanency of the Accidents when the Fathers of that Council were so far from any such Design That they design'd nothing more carefully than to avoid all Scholastick Definitions The subtil Disputes about the Modus existendi as they termed it between the Dominicans and Franciscans in that Council are described at large by Father Paolo himself in the Fourth Book of his History But withal he says they were extreamly Displeasing and Offensive to the Fathers but most of all to the NUNCIO himself and therefore it was resolved in a General Congregation to determine the Matter in as few and general Terms as possible to offend neither Party and avoid Contentions and when notwithstanding this Decree they fell into new Disputes they are check'd by the Famous Bishop of Bitunto who was one of the chief Compilers of the Canons telling them they came thither to condemn Heresies not to define Scholastick Niceties And accordingly in the very First Chapter of the 13th Session in which this Article was defined when they determined the Real Presence they at the same time declare the Existendi Ratio to be ineffable and in the 4th Chapter where Transubstantiation is decreed the Canon runs thus That By the Consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood which Conversion is fitly and properly called by the Holy Catholick Church Transubstantiation In all which the Council only appropriates the Word Transubstantiation to express the Real Presence which it had before determined in the First Chapter not to be after a natural way of Existence as Christ sits at the right Hand of God but Sacramental after an ineffable manner Tho here some peevishly object the Inconsistence of the Council with it self when it declares that the thing is inexpressible and yet appropriates a word to express it Whereas all Christendom knows that the Procession of the Eternal Word from the Father is Ineffable and yet is expressed by the Word Generation and that the Vnion of the divine and humane Nature is ineffable and yet is called the Hypostatical Vnion and that the Vnity in the Trinity is ineffable and yet is expressed by the Word Consubstantial So that this Council seems to have defin'd no more than the Council of Nice did in the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity in expressing the Unity of the Three Persons by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Distinction by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which amounted to no more than this That as it is certain from the Holy Scriptures that in the Unity of the God-head there is a Trinity so the Holy Fathers to avoid the Niceties of contentious Men such as Arius was determine that for the Time to come the Mystery shall be expressed by the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as for any Philosophical Notion of the Mystery the Church never presum'd to define it and this is the Definition of the Council of Trent of the Real Presence that there is a Conversion of the Substances under the Species or Appearances of Bread and Wine which the Church hath thought convenient to express by the Word Transubstantiation And yet tho the Council approve the Word yet it does not impose it it only declares it to be convenient but no where says 't is necessary And as for the Term Conversion it is much older than the Word Transubstantiation familiarly used by the Ancient Fathers and so is the Word Species I know indeed it is usual with School-men and Protestant Writers to translate the Words under Species of Bread and Wine by these Words under the Accidents of Bread and Wine as particularly the late Bishops of Durham and Winchester have done But this is to impose Philosophick Niceties upon the Decrees of the Church And tho perhaps all the

Fathers of the Council believed the Reality of the New substantial Presence under the Old Accidents yet they had more Temper and Discretion than to Authorise it by conciliar Determination and therefore use only the Word Species and no other Word is used by Nicolas II Gregory VII and Innocent III that are thought the Three great Innovators in the Argument of the Real Presence that properly signifies Appearance but nothing of Physical or Natural Reality so that tho the Presence under the Species be real yet as the Council hath defined it it is not Natural but Sacramental which Sacramental Real Presence they express by the Word Transubstantiation and recommend the Propriety of the Word to the Acceptance of Christendom This is the short History of the Real Presence in the Church of Rome where as far as I can discern the thing it self hath been owned in all Ages of the Church the Modus of it never defined but in the Schools and tho they have fansied Thousand Definitions to themselves their Metaphysicks were never admitted into the Church And so I proceed to give an Account of it as it hath been defin'd in the Protestant Churches where we shall find much the same Harmony of Faith and Discord of Philosophy as in the Church of Rome And first we must begin with the famous Confession of Ausburg that was drawn up by Melancthon and in the Year 1530 presented to Charles the Fifth by several Princes of Germany as a Declaration of the Faith of the first Reformers and as the only true standard of the Ancient Protestant Religion The Confesion consists of Two parts I. What Doctrines themselves taught II. What Abuses they desired to be reformed As to the later the Emperor undertook to procure a General Council As to the former particularly this Article of the Presence in the Sacrament they have published it in two several forms In the Latin Edition it is worded thus Concerning the Lords Supper we teach That the Body and Blood of Christ are there present indeed and are distributed to the Receivers at the Lords Supper and condemn those that teach otherwise In the German Edition it is worded thus Concerning the Lords Supper we teach That the true Body and Blood of Christ are truly present in the Supper under the species of Bread and Wine and are there distributed and received And in an Apology written by the same hand and published the Year following it is thus expressed We believe That in the Supper of our Lord the Body and Blood of Christ are really and substantially present and are Exhibited indeed with those things that are seen the Bread and Wine This belief our Divines constantly maintain and we find not only the Church of Rome hath asserted the Corporeal Presence but that the Greek Church hath anciently as well as at this time asserted the same as appears by their Canon Missae The same Author Explains himself more at large in his Epistle to Fredericus Myconius I send you says he the passages out of the Ancients concerning the Lord's Supper to prove that they held the same with us namely That the Body and Blood of our Lord are there present indeed And after divers Citations he concludes That seeing this is the express Doctrine of the Scriptures and constant Tradition of the Church I cannot conceive how by the name of the Body of Christ should only be understood the sign of an absent Body for though the Word of God frequently makes use of Metaphors yet there is a great difference to be made between Historical Relations and Divine Institutions In the first matters transacted among Men and visible to the Sence are related and here we are allow'd and often forced to speak figuratively But if in Divine Precepts or Revelations concerning the Nature or the Will of God we should take the same liberty wise Men cannot but fore-see the Mischiefs that would unavoidably follow There would be no certainty of any Article of Faith. And he gives an instance in the Precept of Circumcision to Abraham That upon those Terms the good Patriarch might have argued with himself That God never intended to impose a thing so seemingly absurd as the words sound and that therefore the Precept is to be understood only of a Figurative or Metaphorical Circumcision the Circumcision of our Lusts. So far this Learned Reformer Now the Authority of Melancthon weighs more with us of the Church of England as the learned Dr. St. very well observes that in the settlement of our Reformation there was no such regard had to Luther or Calvin as to Erasmus and Melancthon whose Learning and Moderation were in greater Esteem here than the fiery spirits of the other and yet few Writers have asserted the Substantial and Corporeal Presence in higher terms than this moderate Reformer and though he may sometimes have varied in Forms of Speech he continued constant and immovable in the substance of the same Doctrine For in the Confession of the Saxon Churches at the Compiling of which he was chief Assistant drawn up in the Year 1551 to have been presented to the Council of Trent a true and substantial Presence is asserted during the time of Ministration We teach say they That Sacraments are Divine Institutions and that the things themselves out of the use desing'd are no Sacraments but in the use Christ is verily and substantially present and the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed taken by the Receivers There seems to have been one singular Notion in this Confession That the Real and Substantial Presence lasts no longer than the Ministration but that is nothing to our Argument as long as a substantial Presence is asserted In the Year 1536 an Assembly of the Divines of the Ausburg Confession on one side and the Divines of Vpper Germany on the other conven'd at Wirtemberg by the procurement and mediation of Bucer who undertook to moderate between both parties where they agreed in this form of Confession We believe according to the words of Irenaeus That the Eucharist consists of two things one Earthly the other Heavenly and therefore believe and teach That the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially exhibited and received with the Bread and Wine This is subscribed by the chief Divines of both Parties and approved by the Helvetian Ministers themselves The Bohemian Waldenses in their Confession of Faith presented to Ferdinand King of the Romans and Bohemia declare expressly That the Bread and Wine are the very Body and Blood of Christ and that Christ is in the Sacrament with his Natural Body but by another way of Existence than at the Right-hand of God. In the Greek Form of Consecration this Prayer was used Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by thy Holy Spirit which words are taken out of the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil. And Ieremias

upon because of that great preheminence that they hold above all other Orders of Creatures A Man for Understanding an Eagle for Swiftness a Lyon and a Bull for Strength But what ever they were they were sacred Images set up by God himself in the place of his own Worship and he was so far from forbidding the use of Images in it that he would not be worshiped without them This is the true Account of Idolatry as it is stated in the Scripture from the grand Design of the Mosaick Law to restore the Worship of the true invisible God the Creator of Heaven and Earth in opposition to the Idols or created Deities of the Heathen World and by all wise Arts and Methods to keep them loyal to himself And this gives us the true Rationale of the Mosaick Law in which every particular Rite had some regard to Idolatry So that the Breach of any one ceremonial Law was a degree of it and to boil a Kid in its Mothers Milk was Idolatry as well as to offer Sacrifice to the Sun because the Heathens used that form of Ceremony in the Worship of that God. God did not think it sufficient for their security to forbid them the Worship of this false God but every minute Circumstance that belonged to it lest by degrees they might be reconciled to it And therefore God calls himself upon all occasions a jealous God and oftentimes a jealous Husband to let them know that they must not only avoid Idolatry it self but all the least appearances and suspicions of it by Heathen Compliances Now if we compare this antient Idolatry of the Jews with that of late charged by some men upon all Christians of the Roman Communion I know not which will appear greatest the Malice or the Folly of the Charge It consists of these three Heads I. The Worship of Images II. Adoration of the Host. III. Invocation of Saints All which are represented to the People as Crimes of the same Nature with the old Egyptian Idolatry But as to the first the Use of Images in the Worship of God I cannot but admire at the Confidence of these Men to make so bold a Charge against them in general when the Images of the Cherubim were commanded by God himself They were the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion and therefore tho Images so far from Idolatry that God made them the Seat of his Presence and from between them delivered his Oracles so that something more is required to make Idolatry than the use of Images This Instance is so plain and obvious to every Reader there being nothing more remarkable in all the old Testament than the Honour done to the Cherubim that 't is a much greater Wonder to me that those Men who advance the Objection of Idolatry so groundlesly can so slightly rid themselves of so pregnant a Proof against it It is objected I remember by a learned Adversary to the great Founder of this and all other Anticatholique and Antichristian and uncharitable Principles among us but he turns it off so carelesly as if it were not worth his Notice First That they only directed their Worship towards the Images Yea they did so as the Symbols of God's Presence and that is to Worship God by Images or to give the same Signs of Reverence to his Representations as to Himself And therefore when David exhorts the People to give Honour to the Ark he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bow down to or worship his Footstool for It or He is holy And if so much outward Worship may be given to Images as Symbols of the Divine presence it is enough to justifie it But however the thing stands the case of all Images is the same and a Roman Catholique may make the same Plea for his Church as this Author does for the Jews and if he accept it in one Case he cannot refuse it in another or if he does he will give but little proof of his Integrity At least God was not so nice and metaphysical in enacting his Laws by distinguishing between bowing to and towards or if these Gentlemen say he was they must shew us where But what Authority do these Men assume to themselves when by the precarious use of these two little Particles they think to make the same Act the Whitest and the Blackest thing in the World towards an Image 't is innocent to it Idolatry But let them take which they please for they are their own Carvers in all their own Controversies If it be no Idolatry to Worship towards an Image after all their Frights they fairly give up the Cause to the Church of Rome that requires no more But the second Reply is much more curious and metaphysical That the Cherubims were not seen by the People and adored but once a year by the High Priest Here then we distinguish between the Idolatry of the Sight and the Mind an Image seen is Idolatry but if covered 't is none So that to adore the Host exposed is Idolatry but in a Pix 't is none What Rubbish is here to stuff out so weighty an Argument But if they did not see their Images in the Ark they knew them to be there and of what Form they were being described to them by God himself in their Law. Upon these Terms it seems a Blind Man can never be an Idolater and if all the Romanists would shut their Eyes at convenient Times they would quit themselves of this black Accusation But the High Priest used this Solemnity only once a year If it were Idolatry it was as unlawful once a year as if done every day and if lawfully done but once a year it was no Idolatry It s being seldom or frequent makes no difference it is either always Idolatry or it is never so And yet these little Pretences are the last Result of this great Argument and when we have loaded the greatest part of Christendom with the foulest Crime in the World we think to make good the Accusation by such shameless Shifts and Pretences as these for in these Trifles the Dispute as to the Cherubim Images ended and yet the Clamour of Idolatry is kept up as high as ever to this very day But what Images do the Roman Catholiques worship Do they worship any Image or Symbols of False Gods as the Supreuse Deities If they do not then they are innocent of the worst part of Idolatry Or do they attempt to make a Similitude of the true God or uncreated Divine Nature That is the other part of Idolatry and the Scripture knows no more therefore however superstitious they may be in their use of Images yet they cannot be guilty of Idolatry but upon one of these two Accounts which no Man was ever yet so hardy as to charge upon that Church Till therefore it be proved that they worship Images of false Gods as the Supreme Deities or that they worship the true God by Corporeal

Images and Representations of his Divine Nature there is no Footing for Idolatry in Christendom As for the Adoration of the Host when they can prove 't is given to it either as a Symbol of a false God or the Picture of the true one howsoever faulty it may be otherwise it can be no Idolatry And as for the Invocation of Saints unless they worship them as the Supreme God the Charge of Idolatry is an idle Word and the Adoration it self that is given to them as Saints is a direct Protestation against Idolatry because it supposes a Superiour Deity and that Supposition cuts off the very being of Idolatry But to give an Account of their precarious Notions of Idolatry and their more precarious ways of proving it would swell to Volumes and therefore at present I shall dismiss the Argument and shall only observe what a Barbarous Thing it is to make the Lives Fortunes and Liberties of the English Nobility and Gentry to depend upon such Trifles and Crudities by remarking the unheard of and unparallel'd Penalties that are annexed to so slender a Law viz. That every Offender shall be deemed and adjudged a Popish Recusant convict to all Intents and Purposes whatsoever and shall forfeit and suffer as a Popish Recusant convict and shall be disabled to hold and Office or Place of Trust or Profit Civil or Military in any of His Majesties Realms or Foreign Plantations And shall be disabled from thenceforth to Sit or Uote in either House of Parliament or make a Proxy in the House of Peers or to sue or use any Action Bill Plaint or Information in Course of Law or to prosecute any Suit in any Court of Equity or to be Guardian of any Child or Executor or Administrator of any Person or capable of any Legacy or Deed of Gift and lastly shall forfeit for every wilful Offence the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds Here are all the Punishments that can be inflicted upon a living Man. Convict Recusancy it self one would think is Punishment more than enough for any one Crime Abjuration of the Realm Returning without leave Felony without Clergy upon refusing to abjure Forfeiture of all Goods Chattels and Lands for Liofe Forfeiture of Sixty Pounds per Annum Banishment from the Kings Court under Forfeiture of an Hundred Pounds and from London on the same Penalty Forfeiture of Right of Patronage Disabled from any Practice or Office in Law and finally disabled to be Guardian Executor or Administrator and Legatee This was thought the utmost Severity in the Zealous days of Queen Elizabeth but alass our Modern Zeal will not be confined to the gentle Moderation of our Fore-fathers but now we must suffer all those with many more to the loss of our Birth-rights and all Benefits of Law for no higher Act of Recusancy than not swearing to the Truth of Dr. St's Unlearned and Fanatique Notion of Idolatry for that in reality is the bottom of all this Mischief and Madness And as it is advanced among us into so bloody a Charge I cannot but declare my utter Abhorrence both of that and its Abetters as sworn Enemies to the Peace of Christendom and in the Result of all I find That Idolatry made the Plot and that the Plot made Idolatry and that the same Persons made both Thus begging Allowance for Humane Infirmities lesser Errors and Mistakes which in so much variety of Argument and Citation will escape the greatest Care I have declared my present Judgment of this unhappy Law as I will answer for my Integrity to God and the World. SA OXON The Names of the protesting Peers to the number of 23. are to be seen in the Journal Book Lib. 4. dist 10. Conference P. 119. Institut Book 4. cap. 17. Sect. 11. Sect. 32. Pag. 166. Anno 5to 6to Edw. 6ti Animad Cass. Artic. 10. in Animad Riveti Votum pro Pace Art. 10. Rivet Apol dicuss Answer to T. C. Dialogue p. 66. Gen. 12. 1. Exod. 3. 6. Ver. 13. Chap. 6. Bochart Dr. Hammond Dr. Spencer Kircher Exod. 32. 6. Gen. 31. 30. Chap. 25 26. Ezek. 20. 7 8. Josh. 24. 14. Judg. 2. 11. Ch. 10. 10. Sam. 7. 3 4. Cap. 12. 1 King. 11. 4 5. 1 King. 12. 16. Vide Dr. Spencer p. 773. 1 King. 14. 22. 1 King. 19. 14 18. 2 King. 17. Ver. 15. Cap. 22. 17. 2 King. 25. More Nevoch Lib. 3. Gen. 17. 7 10. Gal. 5. 3. Exod. 12. 48. 1 Mac. 1. v. 15 48 60 61. 2 King. 16. 18. Psal. 96. 5. Jer. 10. 11 12. Hom. 6. de fest Pasch. Lev. 18. 3. Hist. l. 5. Exod. 12. 3. Exod. 8. 26. Deut. 16. 2. 2 Chron. 25. 7. Exod. 12. 36 Num. 19. Levit. 17. 7. 1 King. 15. 14. 1 King. 22. 43. 2 King. 12. 3. Chap. 14. 4. Chap. 15. 4. Act. 13. 18. Deut. 1. 31. Gal. 4. 3. Exod. 25. 18. Ezek. 28. 14. 1 Sam. 4. 3 4. 2 King. 19. 15. Psal. 24. 78. * Grotius Dr. Spencer Villalpandus Bochartus Exod. 25. 22. Dr. St. of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome 35 Eliz. ca. 1. 3 Jacob. ca. 4.